Someone? Anyone? The blood clotting cascade is not irreducibly complex even though Behe has claimed it as a prime example.

Quote

Kenneth Miller: Let's look at the clotting pathway, this is the way in which blood clots, you call this the Rube Goldberg in the blood, great stuff, and the clotting pathway is extremely complex. It produces a clot around the red blood cell, and what you wrote is, in your book is that none of the cascade proteins, these proteins, are used for anything except controlling the formation of clots, that's very clear. Yet, in the absence of any of the components blood does not clot and the system fails.

Now here's the, the hard part for me. Remember you said, in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot and the system fails. One of those components that you've talked about is called factor 12 or Hagemann factor, and you'd think, if we take it away, the system should fail, so there shouldn't be any living organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, but it turns out, uh, lo and behold, that there are some organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, I've crossed them off up there, and those organisms turn out to be, dolphins and porpoises, they don't have, um, I assume that statement therefore is incorrect and has to be changed?

Michael Behe: Well, first of all let me express my condolences for the dolphins. Umm... <laughter>

Behe has since shifted his claim slowly over time without admitting he has done so.

orion: Iíve read this before and have been unable to find an adequate response. Could someone help me out please.

GilDodgen: Some perspective is needed here. The forest is not being seen for the trees. [...] But eventually weíre talking about highly sophisticated information-processing machinery, a complex factory the likes of which human engineers have not even conceived of, coordinated on countless levels of hierarchical subintegration.

No really, I love it; we can do this all day:

ID proponent: I have developed a mathematical proof that evolution cannot account for traits A, B and C and ID therefore is true, and I don't have to resort to subjective statements about how amazing life is to prove it!

Scientist: Well, ignoring the basic logical fallacy in your argument, the "proof" you have provided is no such thing.

ID proponent: But I have used mathematics! Therefore my proof is true.

Scientist: But you failed to account for X, Y, and Z, didn't include analysis of E, and this here says that 2+2=5. That's just wrong. Plus, here's some evidence that A,B, and C evolved from a simpler ancestor.

ID proponent: Some perspective is needed here. The forest is not being seen for the trees. Look how amazing life is!